The Politics of
Shame, fear and intimidation
By Jim Williams
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Democratic Party Strategies
Monday, August 3, 2009
National Health Care
My next post will be on the purposed National Health Care legislation. This is a huge step and a costly one.
We can't afford to get it wrong!
In anticipation of my next article please check out this powerful video and sign the national petition by clicking the link below.
Eugene, Ore., Jun 6, 2008 / 01:09 am (CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.
Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.
“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.
“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.
“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”
A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.
“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”
According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.
“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.
Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they have not changed their coverage of recurrent cancer patients, but have only clarified the rules.
We can't afford to get it wrong!
In anticipation of my next article please check out this powerful video and sign the national petition by clicking the link below.
Sign the: "Free Our Health Care Now" petition
*
Take a few minutes to read through some of the health care summary and fact check it against the actual health care bill...(both linked below)
Link to: Summary of Health Care Bill
Link to: Health Care Bill H.R.3200
Is the Obama administration trying to do away with private health care insurers?
______________________________________________
And Below, from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) we found this article about the Oregon State run health care system. One of the models our government is using to plan our National Health System. A short and enlighting read!
And Below, from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) we found this article about the Oregon State run health care system. One of the models our government is using to plan our National Health System. A short and enlighting read!
Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient
Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.
“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.
“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.
“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”
A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.
“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”
According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.
“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.
Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they have not changed their coverage of recurrent cancer patients, but have only clarified the rules.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
NAFTA and the US Trucking Industry
By Jim Williams
How does NAFTA affect the U.S. trucking industry and Presidential decisions? In 2007 the Bush administration started a pilot project for Mexican truckers to run the lower 48 of the United States. This was met with great resistance from several organizations, such as the owner operator organization OOIDA; and transportation unions, such as the Teamsters. If the trucking industry itself was not happy with this move, then why was this project pursued?
The Bush Bashers say that the motivation of the Bush administration to start and push this program was to unfairly support big business. In truth, while NAFTA is an economic boost to North American trade, the administration was also trying to stay in compliance with the Clinton administration’s 1995 NAFTA agreement that allowed Mexican trucks access to the lower 48 states by May of 2000. It was this NAFTA requirement that motivated the Bush actions. It is notable to point out that no one asks how and why this administration was able to hold out until 2007 to implement this project.
In contrast, the Obama administration, in an attempt to appease the transportation unions such as the Teamsters, cancelled the Bush “Mexican trucking project”. As stated above, this project was started by the Bush administration to bring the U.S. in compliance with the NAFTA requirements . The Obama Administration’s move set off a “trade war” with Mexico. In response to the U.S. actions Mexico instated a tariff on U.S. products going south of the border. The tariffs, equaling $2.4 billion, were placed on products such as strawberries, grapes, dishwashers, pencils, cordless telephones, pet food and more than 80 other U.S. export products.
Some opinions say Obama is creating a better international face for the United States. This is only true if you are in agreement with the endless apologies he has issued on the international stage. But, if you look deeper into his actions, you will find disappointed countries that were once devoted trade partners, such as Mexico.
President Barack Obama's administration, facing its first dispute with a major trading partner and neighbor, promptly said it would work to create a new cross-border, long-distance trucking program between the two countries. In March 2009, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "The president has tasked the Department of Transportation to work with the U.S. trade representative and the Department of State, along with leaders in Congress and Mexican officials to propose legislation creating a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our NAFTA commitments".
Protectionism always invites retaliation and leaves nations at odds and ultimately poorer. It is natural for each individual to have a protective nature over their source of livelihood, but the big picture should always be looked at when it comes to the global policies that we want our government to pursue. An example, by protecting trucking jobs we inadvertently restrict the livelihood of other industries within our U.S. borders that depend on international trade.
It boils down to this… Do we want free North American trade (and ultimately world trade) or do we want to be Isolationist? The answer to that question will dictate the policies that the individual feels the U.S. should follow. That being said, it is obvious that both of the United States major political parties (democrats and republicans) have bought into and are both moving rapidly toward full free trade. It is also obvious that this movement is not just toward continental free trade, but Free Global trade. This is not a one party one administration concern. This is a new “global” way of doing business.
So this new way of doing business is going to happen. Because of this, it is imperative upon each individual to look ahead to see how this will shape our country and our world. And then, with this new perspective, plan our personal course for the future. This will include what disciplines to study, what jobs to prepare for and what languages to learn. More importantly it will tell us how to guide our children and grandchildren. Resisting will only leave you unprepared.
How does NAFTA affect the U.S. trucking industry and Presidential decisions? In 2007 the Bush administration started a pilot project for Mexican truckers to run the lower 48 of the United States. This was met with great resistance from several organizations, such as the owner operator organization OOIDA; and transportation unions, such as the Teamsters. If the trucking industry itself was not happy with this move, then why was this project pursued?
The Bush Bashers say that the motivation of the Bush administration to start and push this program was to unfairly support big business. In truth, while NAFTA is an economic boost to North American trade, the administration was also trying to stay in compliance with the Clinton administration’s 1995 NAFTA agreement that allowed Mexican trucks access to the lower 48 states by May of 2000. It was this NAFTA requirement that motivated the Bush actions. It is notable to point out that no one asks how and why this administration was able to hold out until 2007 to implement this project.
In contrast, the Obama administration, in an attempt to appease the transportation unions such as the Teamsters, cancelled the Bush “Mexican trucking project”. As stated above, this project was started by the Bush administration to bring the U.S. in compliance with the NAFTA requirements . The Obama Administration’s move set off a “trade war” with Mexico. In response to the U.S. actions Mexico instated a tariff on U.S. products going south of the border. The tariffs, equaling $2.4 billion, were placed on products such as strawberries, grapes, dishwashers, pencils, cordless telephones, pet food and more than 80 other U.S. export products.
Some opinions say Obama is creating a better international face for the United States. This is only true if you are in agreement with the endless apologies he has issued on the international stage. But, if you look deeper into his actions, you will find disappointed countries that were once devoted trade partners, such as Mexico.
President Barack Obama's administration, facing its first dispute with a major trading partner and neighbor, promptly said it would work to create a new cross-border, long-distance trucking program between the two countries. In March 2009, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "The president has tasked the Department of Transportation to work with the U.S. trade representative and the Department of State, along with leaders in Congress and Mexican officials to propose legislation creating a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our NAFTA commitments".
Protectionism always invites retaliation and leaves nations at odds and ultimately poorer. It is natural for each individual to have a protective nature over their source of livelihood, but the big picture should always be looked at when it comes to the global policies that we want our government to pursue. An example, by protecting trucking jobs we inadvertently restrict the livelihood of other industries within our U.S. borders that depend on international trade.
It boils down to this… Do we want free North American trade (and ultimately world trade) or do we want to be Isolationist? The answer to that question will dictate the policies that the individual feels the U.S. should follow. That being said, it is obvious that both of the United States major political parties (democrats and republicans) have bought into and are both moving rapidly toward full free trade. It is also obvious that this movement is not just toward continental free trade, but Free Global trade. This is not a one party one administration concern. This is a new “global” way of doing business.
So this new way of doing business is going to happen. Because of this, it is imperative upon each individual to look ahead to see how this will shape our country and our world. And then, with this new perspective, plan our personal course for the future. This will include what disciplines to study, what jobs to prepare for and what languages to learn. More importantly it will tell us how to guide our children and grandchildren. Resisting will only leave you unprepared.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
